[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 14 KB, 197x300, 60-confessions.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18862811 No.18862811 [Reply] [Original]

>sex bad
this book is for cucks! there literally nothing wrong with enjoying some time eith your wife.

>> No.18862832

faggot

>> No.18862903

>>18862811
Carthago delenda est. The man who destroyed Europe and caused Protestantism. Pelagius was right.

>> No.18862908

>>18862903
catholic larper reveals his true form

>> No.18862992

>>18862908
If he says Pelagius was right he isn’t catholic mate.

>> No.18863001

>>18862992
catholics are semi-pelagians

>> No.18863074

>>18863001
Demonstrate for general (and my specific) edification. In particular note the definitive and peripheral features of pelagianism and how Catholicism essentially and peripherally demonstrates relevant ones from each category to the point that it ought to be considered semi

>> No.18863133

>>18862811
>there literally nothing wrong with enjoying some time eith your wife.
Wrong. Any act of copulation is animal tier and lowers the mind from its loftly heights. If you masturbate, copulate, fornicate, sodomize, you are NOT going to make it.

>> No.18863164

>>18862811
You have to understand Augustine's culture to understand his attitudes toward sex. Augustine wasn't quite anti-sex and anti-marriage (that would be an anti-Christian attitude), but in ancient Rome, sex was an act largely divorced from what Christians believed God intended. Marriage was essentially a business transaction, which in Augustine's mind was similar to prostitution, and therefore distasteful. And one could keep a concubine and have sex with one's slaves freely, which, again, ran afoul of Christian sexual ethics (fornication and all that). The traditions of marriage for love and monogamy came later, as a result of the influence of Christianity over culture. In that context, there's nothing sinful or unethical about marital sex - or, at least, there was nothing sinful about marital intercourse until secular society fucked up the definition of marriage. We're kind of heading back to square one, now.

>> No.18863168

>>18862811
I met a guy today who fucked a Catholic Nun

>> No.18863222

>>18863164
Low IQ and pseud post. Most of the early Church fathers railed against marital fornication.

>> No.18863226

>>18863222
wtf is marital fornication

>> No.18863240

>>18863226
Fucking your own wife.

>> No.18863250

>>18863240
No, you moronic brainlet.

>> No.18863261

>>18863240
Did they believe in parthenogenesis?

>> No.18863264

>>18863226
"Spouses live as animals; through sexual commixture with wives men do not differ in anything from pigs and other irrational animals" — St. Jerome (PBUH) in Patrologiae cursus completus: sive biblioteca universalis, Volume 23.

All of the early church fathers condemned marital copulation and considered explicit procreation to be the sole justification for it, and outside of it it was at the very least a venial sin with every release. Even St. Paul said marriage was just a last ditch effort to contain fornication. It is anathema to state there is nothing wrong with it, when it clearly is an inferior passion most are driven to out of a mad pleasure. There is nothing virtuous about it and submitting to it is a sign you and your spouse are far from God, and prefer created things and pleasures to spiritual ones.

>> No.18863268

>>18862811
In his time, banging your wife meant pregnancy and kids. With maternal and infant mortality sky high, he has a point that it is a bad thing to do for a coom.

>> No.18863270

>>18863268
He never made any appeals to outsiders, brainlet. That has always been a bad argument. Cooming is bad not for what it does to others (literally, who cares) but for what it does to yourself.

>> No.18863280

>>18863270
The principle of charity precludes me from making this reading, as it is too aggressively retarded, sorry.

>> No.18863282

>>18863264
literal incel religion

>> No.18863284

>>18863264
"Spouses live as animals; through sexual commixture with wives men do not differ in anything from pigs and other irrational animals"

What a brainlet. Animals have sex in order to reproduce.

>> No.18863299

>>18863282
St. Jerome wasn't an incel and had more sex in his early life than Augustine

>> No.18863302

>>18862811
>>sex bad
it's more of degenerate bad

>> No.18863309

>>18863222
And what was the cultural context in which they were writing? Graeco-Roman. They were responding to the marital situation as it existed, and not towards marriage as a concept.

And expand your vocabulary. Not everything is "based," "pseud," or "tranny incel coomer."

>> No.18863344

>>18863309
Your entire argument was refuted in Against Jovinianus
>that would be an anti-Christian attitude
No, it wouldn't. Defending these for their own sake and validating them is what exactly what Jovinianus espoused. Jerome opposed this and pointed to St. Paul, the Gospels and other scripture, for why marriage exists not to promote any good in itself but to prevent a worse evil, namely that of fornication. This being a remedy against sin and vehicle for procreation were the only defenses of marriage. Its pleasure does not serve a personal good for the individual and makes him burn ardently with passion, something that can lead one astray.

>> No.18863350

>>18863309

Retroactive BTFO 1/2

>Among other things the Corinthians asked in their letter whether after embracing the faith of Christ they ought to be unmarried, and for the sake of continence put away their wives, and whether believing virgins were at liberty to marry. And again, supposing that one of two Gentiles believed on Christ, whether the one that believed should leave the one that believed not? And in case it were allowable to take wives, would the Apostle direct that only Christian wives, or Gentiles also, should be taken? Let us then consider Paul's replies to these inquiries. Now concerning the things whereof you wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife has not power over her own body, but the husband: And likewise also the husband has not power over his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that you may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency. But this I say by way of permission not of commandment. Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man has his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. Let us turn back to the chief point of the evidence: It is good, he says, for a man not to touch a woman. If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil. But surely a thing which is only allowed because there may be something worse has only a slight degree of goodness. He would never have added let each man have his own wife, unless he had previously used the words but, because of fornications. Do away with fornication, and he will not say let each man have his own wife. Just as though one were to lay it down: It is good to feed on wheaten bread, and to eat the finest wheat flour, and yet to prevent a person pressed by hunger from devouring cow-dung, I may allow him to eat barley. Does it follow that the wheat will not have its peculiar purity, because such an one prefers barley to excrement? That is naturally good which does not admit of comparison with what is bad, and is not eclipsed because something else is preferred. At the same time we must notice the Apostle's prudence:

>> No.18863352

2/2

>He did not say, it is good not to have a wife: but, it is good not to touch a woman: as though there were danger even in the touch: as though he who touched her, would not escape from her who hunts for the precious life, who causes the young man's understanding to fly away. Proverbs 6:27-28 Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be scorched? As then he who touches fire is instantly burned, so by the mere touch the peculiar nature of man and woman is perceived, and the difference of sex is understood. Heathen fables relate how Mithras and Ericthonius were begotten of the soil, in stone or earth, by raging lust. Hence it was that our Joseph, because the Egyptian woman wished to touch him, fled from her hands, and, as if he had been bitten by a mad dog and feared the spreading poison, threw away the cloak which she had touched. But, because of fornications let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. He did not say, because of fornication let each man marry a wife: otherwise by this excuse he would have thrown the reins to lust, and whenever a man's wife died, he would have to marry another to prevent fornication, but have his own wife. Let him he says have and use his own wife, whom he had before he became a believer, and whom it would have been good not to touch, and, when once he became a follower of Christ, to know only as a sister, not as a wife unless fornication should make it excusable to touch her. The wife has not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband has not power over his own body, but the wife. The whole question here concerns those who are married men. Is it lawful for them to do what our Lord forbade in the Gospel, and to put away their wives? Whence it is that the Apostle says, It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But inasmuch as he who is once married has no power to abstain except by mutual consent, and may not reject an unoffending partner, let the husband render unto the wife her due. He bound himself voluntarily that he might be under compulsion to render it.

>> No.18863547

>>18863350
>>18863352
St. Jerome also writes in Letter 48: "Does a man who speaks thus, I would ask you, condemn marriage? If I have called virginity gold, I have spoken of marriage as silver."

Retroactive BTFO, indeed.

>> No.18863569

When women have sex they give away their soul.

>> No.18863586

>>18862903
If it wasn't for him Euorpe would be a cesaropapist shithole as orthodox countries

>> No.18863610

>>18863569
You got that backwards.

>> No.18863671

>>18863164
>wasn't quite anti-sex and anti-marriage (that would be an anti-Christian attitude)
But mariage has always been a civil contract, even in the Middle-Ages, in fact unrelated to christianity. And christianity IS anti-sex.

>> No.18863809

>>18863164
>marriage for love and monogamy came later, as a result of the influence of Christianity
You have to be delusional to actually believe this

>> No.18863812

>children are evil
What was Augustines hecking problem?

>> No.18863813

He was incredibly angry after getting blue-balled by Manicheans for something like 8 years.

>> No.18863834

>>18863268
>In his time, banging your wife meant pregnancy and kids
Not if you bang her filthy little mouth. What did the church fathers say about that?

>> No.18863911

>>18863809
But that is true, even Nietzsche recognized it. You can see this expressed in medieval provençal tradition, gai saber and the troubadours, later culminating in sophisticated erotic spirit with Dante, Petrarca. Marriage with Christianity assumes a totally different and purely metaphysical sense, like Christ uniting the divine and human, the christian marriage is the institution of union par excellence.

>> No.18863957

>>18863911
It's so mystical and divine that people want to experience it again and again, that's why divorce rates are so high.

>> No.18863963

>>18863284
No they don't. They have it because their irrational beasts impelled to it by nature and rewarded by a sense of pleasure.

>> No.18863973

>>18863834
They considered perversions even within marriage to be a mortal sin and worse than fornication as these behaviors are against nature itself.

>> No.18863984

>>18863164
>The traditions of marriage for love and monogamy came later
No they didn't. Marriage for love was seen as absurd during pagan times, christian times were no different. Idea of marriage for love became popular later, around 1700-1800, a time when previous christian culture focusing on virtue changed into more bourgeois idea life is for pleasure/enjoyment.

>> No.18863990

>>18863834
Oral sex is for literal whores and literal limp-dicked impotents.

Your ancestors would be ashamed of you; modern man is so weak and degenerate he can't even use a simple thing like a penis properly.

>> No.18864002

>>18863984
The concept of Christian romantic love ("amor gentile") was already a thing in Dante's times (XIII century).

>> No.18864005

>>18863990
Lol someone sounds impotent.
My ancestors would probably give me a high five.

>> No.18864010

>>18863957
Divorce rates… in middle ages? Yeah divorce was never a thing and civil marriage is not marriage.

>> No.18864016

>>18863984
See >>18863911

>> No.18864023

>>18864010
What a handful of circle jerking poets describe is not a historical social reality, anon. I don't really care what purple prose you use to couch it with, your point is just idle talk.

>> No.18864025

>>18863990
>>18864005
Isn't onanism technically related to orgasms and wasting seed? I mean if she strokes your pp for a minute but then you do missionary while handholding for the sake of procreation that's also abominable?

>> No.18864037

>>18863809
He's right. Monogamy is fairly exclusively Christian, with only a few minor exceptions historically.

>> No.18864044

>>18864002
Read my post again, you missed something.
>>18864010
Divorce was a thing in middle ages, not sure how common, but it did happen.

>> No.18864053

>>18864044
>not sure how common
Very uncommon. It needed express approval from the Pope, and even as a king he still required substantial reasoning. It was a union that could only be broken by God's representative on Earth (the Pope).

>> No.18864057

The church fathers sound like a bunch of killjoys, I thought they were cool, you know, like a grandfather.

>> No.18864064

>>18864005
If you had a real dick you'd slam her with your massive shlong and make her scream for mercy.

Instead you're begging your kween to masturbate your limp disgusting jelly member with her mouth.

>> No.18864069

>>18864053
Most cases one of the partners just fucked off, which is practically a divorce.

>> No.18864079

>>18863164
>Marriage was essentially a business transaction
Many times it was, but that's the same everywhere. The Romans did consider love in a relationship and thought it was a good thing.
>The traditions of marriage for love and monogamy came later,
Not necessarily. Roman men while allowed to have sex with slaves and if they are military men, concubines (who were basically their wife in most circumstances) they were bound to some rules, you couldn't bring women home with you, you couldn't openly have sex with somebody else that wasn't a slave or else your wife would have a strong divorce case.

It may not have been like Persia were love was the most highly valued part of marriage they still used marriage as a business transaction much like the Romans.

>> No.18864080

>>18864064
Oral and vaginal sex are not mutually exclusive, anon. One often is the foreplay to the other.

>> No.18864094

>>18864057
They sound based. They also were Chad's in their youth so they experienced these pleasures first hand and know well of how much bitterness they're spiced with.

>> No.18864098

>>18864023
The point is the understanding of marriage with and in Christianity. You disregarded my entire post to make a stupid remark about divorces in the middle ages as if it were secular contemporary society.

>>18864044
Never heard about it but I’m sure the rare cases of divorce had grievous motives for their consumation like adultery.

>> No.18864111

>>18864098
Woman could get a divorce if the man was impotent, very grievous.

>> No.18864137

>>18864111
Many such cases!

>> No.18864147

>>18864080
Foreplay is a perversion.

>> No.18864155

>>18864147
Can you point me to the canonical passages against foreplay? Not being smug, legit asking

>> No.18864158

>>18864147
Are you an authority in my specific church? If not, I disregard what you have to say.

>> No.18864194

>>18864155
Saint Jerome, Doctor and Father of the Church

Illicit sexual acts within marriage are equivalent to fornication and adultery, as Saint Jerome taught:

>“And it makes no difference how honorable may be the cause of a man’s insanity. Hence Xystus in his Sentences tells us that ‘He who too ardently loves his own wife is an adulterer.’ It is disgraceful to love another man’s wife at all, or one’s own too much. A wise man ought to love his wife with judgment, not with passion. Let a man govern his voluptuous impulses, and not rush headlong into intercourse. There is nothing blacker than to love a wife as if she were an adulteress.” (St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Bk 1, n. 49)

Notice that St. Jerome states that “it makes no difference how honorable may be the cause of a man’s insanity.” In other words, the intention which motivates a man to sin is irrelevant to the morality of the act. If a sexual act is a sin, it does not matter how honorable the man’s intentions are, it is still a serious moral disorder, comparable, as a figure of speech, to the serious mental disorder of insanity.

St. Jerome plainly taught that there are sexual sins within marriage. The idea that “nothing is shameful” as long as the marital act occurs at some point in time is plainly rejected by St. Jerome. It is contrary to wisdom and good judgment for a man to have sexual relations with his wife in an inordinate manner. Though St. Jerome does not, like modern-day moral theologians, give explicit descriptions of various sexual acts, it is clear that he rejects the idea that the mere deposit of the right bodily fluid in the right location justifies all other acts.

>> No.18864210

>>18864155
https://catholicstrength.com/tag/saint-alphonsus-liguori-supports-the-view-of-those-who-argue-that-anal-penetration-as-foreplay-is-a-mortal-sin/

>> No.18864211

>>18864194
>Let a man govern his voluptuous impulses, and not rush headlong into intercourse.
This seems to be pro-foreplay to me.

>> No.18864223

>>18864211
>govern

>> No.18864224

>>18864194
>>18864210
I was talking about the Bible, sorry

>> No.18864279

>>18864111
Again, none is claiming marriage became perfect after Christianity, we are saying Christianity perfected it and gave a new, metaphysical significance to it, dignified it. And yeah, the marriage has a procreative purpose as well, so impotency is grievous.

>> No.18864444

>>18863264
What is wrong with sex? Why should we not prefer created material pleasures to created spiritual pleasures?

>> No.18864458

>>18864094
>they had an unhealthy relationship with these pleasures because they were prodigal "chads" born into fallen bodies, therefore these things are wrong in themselves, and forever

>> No.18864519

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoptsy

>> No.18864915

>>18864519
Wow based. Only the castrati are truly saved.

>> No.18865024

>>18864444
>he didn't read Book II of Confessions
ngmi

>> No.18865039

>>18862811
>there literally nothing wrong with enjoying some time eith your wife's son.

>> No.18865048

>>18865039
RIP alopeus

>> No.18865502

>>18865024
Poetic buffoonery, no actual, solid argumentation. And that is if it is actually truthful, and not moralistic hyperbole concocted in a state of sin-gorged self-pity, guilt, and bitterness.

I mean, how can you tell me "ngmi" when Augustine says this:
"Had I paid careful attention to these sayings and 'become a eunuch for the sake of heaven' (Matt. 19;12), I would have been happier finding fulfilment in your embraces

Especially when there are Godly, happy people who use their genitals and are not eunuchs, figurative or literal.
It all rests on this slanderous dichotomy that you either love the world, or you love God, when you could easily love God through the world. People only return to these beliefs in their old age because they are sterilized by age, fearful, and have their backs broken by life's troubles. You conceive of the material or sex as "lower" because you indulged unhealthily in it and because you were a lower type of man. You can see in his lowly, previous attitude-

"I had no motive for my wickedness except wickedness itself. It was foul, and I loved it. I loved the self-destruction, I loved my fall, not the object for which I had fallen but my fall itself... I was seeking not to gain anything by shameful means, but shame for its own sake" (p. 29).

If I didn't hit the mark, by all means, post the relevant quotes and rebut what I said. Otherwise, the entire theme of the book seems to be that God represents all of the lofty things, and all of the things of this world are necessarily lowly, so we should cast aside the latter and pursue the former (through negation of self)

>> No.18865525
File: 58 KB, 885x874, sad autism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18865525

>>18863133
what if you can't help but to masturbate?

>> No.18866105

>>18865502
It's clear in 1 Corinthians that there is nothing wrong with getting married, and having sex. It is just not as good as the alternative. You are reading the honest confessions of somebody with a sexually immoral past, so naturally you would not find a full exposition of the moral ethics of marital sex - he is only telling his story.

>> No.18866107

>>18863963
they don't feel pleasure. cats for example don't feel pleasure. You know that you are an animal too by the way? Sto blatering about muh irrationality

>> No.18866130

>>18865525
Repent honestly, go to confession, and God will give you the grace to overcome your temptation. Happened to me. But don't listen to that guy w/r/t sex with your wife being bad. That is not biblical, at all.

>> No.18867064

>>18866130
I see a primary sources and arguments from him. I see nothing from you. St. Thomas considered intercourse within marriage to always be a venial sin.

>> No.18867169

>>18867064
>I see a primary sources and arguments from him
You must be the same guy, because there are no IDs on this board, and that guy hasn't replied to any posts replying to him. If you want a primary source, just read 1 Corinthians 7. This shit is so simple, I don't understand how people mess it up. Do you really think that having sex with your spouse, even for the purpose of conceiving a child is a sin? St. Paul literally says "Do not deprive each other [from having sex], except by mutual consent and for a time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control" Please provide a link to your supposed reference to St. Thomas, I literally don't believe it.

>> No.18867527

>>18865525
Whenever I break a nofap streak it feels underwhelming as fuck and I keep thinking to myself "wow, I didn't really need this."

If you compulsively fap then the initial "shock therapy" of first quitting is going to be painful and you will feel messed up/anxiety-riddled for a while. After you get past that curve, the "desire" for sex is stronger on you than the actual pleasure you get from indulging in it.

t. a weird pseudointellectual Catholic with Augustine as a patron

>> No.18867563

"What can be called more sordid, more void of modesty, more full of shame than prostitutes, brothels and every other evil of this kind? Yet remove prostitutes from human affairs, and you will pollute all things with lust; set them among honest matrons, and you will dishonour all things with disgrace and turpitude", Saint Augustine, De Ordine II.4

"Prostitution is like the filth in the sea, or a sewer in the palace. Take away the sewer, and you will fill the palace with pollution; and likewise with the filth (in the sea). Take away prostitutes from the world, and you will fill it with sodomy". Saint Thomas Aquinas in Opuscula XVI (IV in 1875 Paris ed.)

in reality they were pretty pragmatic

>> No.18867584

>>18864444
There is no pleasure. The point is to abandon all pleasure and comfort. We stay chaste, and we mourn. Nothing but fasting, vigils, and prayer.

>> No.18867638
File: 34 KB, 337x394, 14759350.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18867638

>>18862811
"Thus we have a ternary, God, man, and woman, the man yearning for his Lord Who is his origin, as woman yearns for man. His Lord made women dear to Muhammad, just as God loves that which is in His own image...When a man loves a woman, he seeks union with her, that is to say the most complete union possible in love, and there is in the elemental sphere no greater union than that between the sexes....When man contemplates the Reality in woman he beholds Him in a passive aspect, while when he contemplates Him in himself, as being that from which woman is manifest, he beholds Him in an active aspect. When, however, he contemplates Him in himself, without any regard to what has come from him, he beholds Him as passive to Himself directly. However, his contemplation of the Reality in woman is the most complete and perfect, because in in this way he contemplates the Reality in both active and passive mode, while by contemplating the Reality only in himself, he beholds Him in passive mode particularly...Contemplation of the Reality without formal support is not possible, since God, in his His Essence, is far beyond all need of the Cosmos. Since, therefore, some form of support is necessary, the best and most perfect kind is the contemplation of God in women. The greatest union is that between man and woman, corresponding as it does to the turning of God toward the one He has created in His own image, to make him His vicegerent, so that He might behold Himself in him." - Ibn Arabi

>> No.18867914

>>18862811
>>sex bad

isnt it impossible to be a cuck in that case?

>> No.18867926

>>18862811
What's wrong with being a literal cuck?

>> No.18867944

>>18867169
The council of trent asserted the superiority of celibacy chasity to the married state.

>> No.18867958
File: 552 KB, 1056x1077, 3B1EFF2C-AFE6-4CB4-BDAF-8D05F3B267E7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18867958

>>18862811
Don’t become Catholic
Don’t remain Catholic
Don’t post anymore Catholic books

>> No.18867996

>>18867958
seething

>> No.18868023

>>18867958
Don't become female
Oh wait you can't nvm

>> No.18868048

>>18867996
Just advice.
>>18868023
One cannot charge ones sex, no matter how one may want to.

>> No.18868798

>>18867958
You will always be like a dog shackled to the chains of lust.

>> No.18868838

>so you see
>*uses altar to bend over an altar boy and ass rape him*
>what you have to understand
>*uses the confessional as a gloryhole booth to mouthrape an 8 year old boy*
>what is exceedingly important for your salvation
>*orders rent boys directly to his vatican apartment*
>the most important step for your salvation
>*forces altar boy to suck his dick under the sermon pulpit while preaching*
>the church fathers all agreed
>*covers up the most extensive and systematic pedophilia of any institution in the history of mankind*
>they all agreed that when it comes to SEX
>*splits open 6 year old childs ass like a coconut while holding a 3 year old in the air in front of him with one arm and devouring his dick*
>that sex, sex is very bad
>*masturbates in the face of infant and baptizes infant in jizz*
>and you should definitely NOT be having consensual sex with women, because it is sinful
>*inserts entire baby into ass and uses it as a buttplug*

>> No.18868860

>>18867958
butterfly has converted hundreds to christianity just by posting pure cringe

>> No.18868911

>>18868838
Reddit

>> No.18868923

>>18862811
Imagine having sex with your wife and then feeling bad about it so you tell some homosexual pedophile about your guilt in a phone booth.

>> No.18868932

>>18868923
Intercourse and masturbation place you at a lower level of existence. Enjoy seminal wastage and it consequences.

>> No.18868977

>>18862811
If you behave like a degenerate and fuck random whores/whoremen in unnatural waves, your perception of sex is irrevocably tainted. You can no longer "just" have sex with your virgin wife, especially if she is not virgin herself. You can't "just" kiss the lips of a woman who sucked a mile of cocks from a hundred randos, you'll be kissing their cocks basically - and what if she indulged in licking literal assholes? Bleh hard to even write about this, wish I never learned of porn
So after indulging in rampant degeneracy for years or even decades, the burnouts inevitably find the very idea of sex abhorrent. You CANT enjoy sex if you go degenerate, one try is enough. It is like murdering a man, even involuntary manslaughter forever taints your life (and any man who killed another man if forever barred from clergy, for example - he is ritually unclean).
So sex is totally OK, if you do it right all the way. A virgin man with a virgin wife in the right way at the right time OK with having babies, no abuse in relationships - all perfect. By one action of degeneracy ruins it forever, like why would a woman even allow into herself a dick that was previously stuck into someone else's shit in this someone else's asshole for example. Or how about submitting to a man after a previous experience of being abused and humiliated that she will be recalling forever?
So there you go.

>> No.18868983

>>18862811
>>18868977
I unironically believe the current licentiousness of Western society with literal flood of porn from everything that has a screen will have a severe blowback once modern troonish degenerates hit their 50's as utter burnouts. I have a feeling late Roman society was just a degenerate.
Now why Augustine believed unbaptized babies were destined to endless torture, that's something fucked up in the whole other caliber.

>> No.18868999
File: 330 KB, 1696x1643, DE573526-B6B5-4269-AFC8-A4594C6040DC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18868999

>>18868860
Better resolution

>> No.18869095

>>18868911
>tradLARPer avoids dealing with the fact that his chosen costume is an institution behind the most horrific and systematic child sex abuse in the entire history of mankind by insisting that the ones who point it out have different preferences in online procrastination than the tradLARPer preference which is an anime forum renowned for irreverence and degeneracy and that failing to properly enunciate the shibboleths of this anime forum means that it is OK to fuck children
Peak clown modernity, and God damn have I known a lot of faggy tradLARPers, and it always, always goes like this:
Age 14-17: Internet athiesm
Age 17-21: existentialist philosophy
Age 21-23: metaphysics
Age 23-25: seduced by the scholastics, becomes catholic
Age 25-27: LARPing as catholic no longer fills the need for attention, needs something more outrageous - becomes orthodox
Age 27, hopefully: stops being a giant fucking faggot and ceases the LARPs.

>> No.18869108

>>18868932
>lower level of existence.
>actually, being a virgin means I'm a higher level than you!
God damn this shit is so dorky, but if you really believe in all the catholic cringe, then you, like every other internet LARPer, need to think very hard on superbia.

>> No.18869145

I'm pretty sure the actual, non tradtard Catholic position is that sex with the wife is 100% good and fine as long as it results in a creampie. Same goes for foreplay, BJs etc.: must result in a creampie--MUST. (Obviously no contraceptives allowed.)

>> No.18869154

>>18862811
You're right
Fuck the Church Fathers, read the Renaissance Christians instead. Marsilio Ficino, Meister Eckhart.

>> No.18869155

>>18868048
it would be a lot easier to believe you arent seething if you didn't sperg out completely unprovoked about any mention of anything remotely related to spirituality on this board

>> No.18869158

>>18869145
What about cum on feet?

>> No.18869191

>>18869145
The Orthodox priests marry. More to that, you HAVE to marry and make many kids if you ever plan to upgrading into a bishop, since being procreative and having a successful household makes shows you are qualified to take on managing a diocese. With age you usually lose interest in sex, so bishops being exclusively celibate is usually not a problem for you. You become a monk, divorce and upscale into a bishop, while your wife may remain a layperson or go monk too, and now long since grown kids take your household. Also you get clerical dynasties, so smart people who can actually read and understand what they read leave offspring that continue the line and/or diversify into other occupations, especially state bureaucracy or the sciences even.
So pedophilia is basically unknown in the church. The forced celibate of priests is one of the things that make Roman Catholicism so alien to me and perhaps many others - the usual retort is that to rule Roman Catholic church instead of merely tending to it, the Popes forces monk-hood on people not prepared for it and incapable of being life-long celibate, with inevitable lapses and then degeneracy.

>> No.18869199

>>18863133
>rejecting your instincts for some 'higher being'
bugman cope

>> No.18869205

>>18869158
>And it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground
>And the thing which he did displeased YHWH: wherefore he slew him also
Although the Onan episode might refer to him refusing to uphold the tradition where if your brother died without child, you were supposed to take his wife and give her sons in his name, and not the fact that he pulled out

>> No.18869227

>>18869158
that's perfectly okay of course

>> No.18869238

>>18869158
As long as you can get it in the pussy too I guess

>> No.18869243

guys how the FUCK do i discern where the true church is

>> No.18869250

>>18863164
Christianity was already the dominant culture by his time. Augustine's anti pagan writings was essentially like modern Americans writing polemics against white supremacy.

>> No.18869377

>>18869243
Christ literally told you Peter is the rock he will build his church on and you still can't figure it out lmaaaooo

>> No.18869507

>>18866107
>cats for example don't feel pleasure.
what.

>> No.18869928

>>18868838
Priests are significantly less likely to molest a child than the average adult male. Unlike rabbis and imams.

But keep posting le epic media jew meme

>> No.18870066

>>18867944
Yeah, so did Jesus in Matthew 19. That celibacy is superior does not imply that the married state is bad. "So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better." (1 Corinthians 7:38)

>> No.18870844

>>18869377
but the eastern church keeps drawing me away anon, the westerners seem more rooted in the middle ages & renaissance than the ancient world desu and even that is slipping away in the modern era

>> No.18870863

>>18864158
based protestant

>> No.18871154

>>18870844
>but the eastern church keeps drawing me away anon
east2west.org

>> No.18871188

>>18867958
kys tranny

>> No.18871528

>>18871154
They seem like to be in the position of red headed step children. Also there are very few of them where I live

>> No.18871618

>>18871528
To be fair, if the Catholic Church is the true church, any distance is worth it. Back in the Roman Empire, people would have been willing to walk miles to celebrate mass with a legitimate priest, and then after their walk home, risked getting eaten by lions in the Colosseum

>> No.18871702

>>18869377
Peter was bishop of Antioch before Rome though. Which would make Antioch the one true Church. The place where Christians started being called Christian.

>> No.18871790

>>18871702
Peter died in Rome (which he called Babylon). The early church was aware that Rome, because of this, became the church which has presidency over the rest of the universal church.

"Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that
hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father
Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the
church that is beloved and enlightened through the
will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith
and love towards Jesus Christ our God; [!!!] even unto her
that hath the presidency in the country of the region
of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour,
worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of
success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency
of love, [!!!] walking in the law of Christ and bearing the
Father's name; which church also I salute in the name
of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that
in flesh and spirit are united unto His every
commandment, being filled with the grace of God
without wavering, and filtered clear from every
foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our
God in blamelessness."
- St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans

>> No.18871818

>>18869199
>>rejecting your instincts for some 'higher being'
>bugman cope
How? If anything, sex-obsessed weirdos are the actual bugmen. Look on average who are the types of people who put sex on a pedestal. Usually dysgenic freaks, lgbt faggots, etc. The idolization of sex creates city dwellers whose highest calling is being a slave in a *literal* bug apartment fornicating with his mediocre girlfriend. Unironically sounds like a hellish existence.

>> No.18871845

>>18871790
>Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is at Philadelphia, which has obtained mercy through love, and is established in the harmony of God, and rejoiceth unceasingly, in the passion of our Lord Jesus, and is filled with all mercy through His resurrection; which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially to those who are in unity with the bishop, and the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed by the will of God the Father, through the Lord Jesus Christ,
who, according to His own will, has firmly established His Church upon a rock, by a spiritual building, not made with hands, against which the winds and the floods have beaten, yet have not been able to overthrow it: yea, and may spiritual wickedness never be able to do so, but be thoroughly weakened by the power of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Blessed Ignatius sure does have a way with words.

I especially like part where he says "firmly established His Church upon a rock, by a spiritual building, not made with hands"

>> No.18871900

>>18871845
>Blessed Ignatius sure does have a way with words.
Yep, absolutely. How confident he was that even in his time of persecutions, that the gates of Hell would never prevail. May we have his same confidence and bravery.

>> No.18871903

>>18869243
Judge by the fruits

>> No.18871943

Everyone was having sex in Roman empire, hence why Christians were so against people having sex. Christians also opposed sex because they expected the end of the world to happen within their lifetimes, so bringing more children into the world wouldn't be fair. Nowadays no one's having sex, partially because everyone expects human extinction by 2040, so abstinence rules the day is not something that needs to be encouraged.

Yes I'm aware everyone else in this thread is slamming ass everyday but the global trend lines indicate that sex is at an all time low amongst young people, and something like 1-in-4 people between ages 18-30 haven't had sex in the previous 12 months.

>> No.18871969

>>18871943
>so abstinence rules the day is not something that needs to be encouraged.
If it is divine law, it will never change. Fornication will always be an abomination.

>> No.18872061

>>18862811
Saint Augustine wasn't a cuck.
He banged a fuck tonne of chicks before turning to God when all of the shagging gave him a guilt complex.
Didn't he accidentally fuck one of his relatives too?
Man couldn't keep it in his pants.
So no he wasn't a cuck, he just wrote a treatise on sex being bad because he was too much of an untermensch to keep his libido in check.

>> No.18872079

>>18869145
Wrong. Stop trying to justify sensual perversions.

>>18864194
>>18864210

>> No.18872100

>>18871943
That demographic doesn't fuck because of how technology has warped and destroyed socialization, in every aspect. Not because "everyone" expects human extinction. Out of the hundreds of people I know, I can only think of one who holds that view. I would even go as far as to say that most people don't have a well-formed opinion on the future.

>> No.18872172

>>18871903
Both the westerners and easterners seem to have yielded both good and bad fruits

>> No.18872251

so if anons tell me to have sex they're actually gaslighting me into sin?

>> No.18872270
File: 35 KB, 458x458, whenbutterfly.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18872270

>>18867958
please, i'm really asking you politely and with all my kindness - consider leaving /lit/, go spam /mu/ or reddit

>> No.18872635

>>18871969
Probably a big design flaw when you tie reproduction to sex but also make sex bad and make sex outside of marriage a sin but then have marriage not exist as a concept for the first 96% of human history and Christian marriage only start to exist 2000 years ago.
>>18872100
Technology itself doesn't destroy socialization, how technology is used and who gets paid from its use is very much a human decision. Everyone's sense of community is indeed being destroyed but it's due to social policy, not some immutable laws of either economics or technology.

As for well-formed views of the future, one can't hold a positive view of the future right now and call themselves "well informed," especially as we head into an environmental crisis which is already happening far worse and far sooner than anticipated and is currently on track to being the worst series of crises in human history. Without major changes happening immediately we will see death tolls in the billions by mid-century. The "alarmist" predictions up to this point have so far turned out to be recklessly optimistic and naive, and the scientific community has screwed everyone by leaving them with the impression the crisis isn't as bad as everyone's saying.

I also don't understand how conservatives can simultaneously believe that technology is slowly killing everyone but the future is still bright.

>> No.18872649

>>18862811
reminds me of Freud who decided not to fuck his wife anymore so that he can redirect his libido towards his work. kinda based.

>> No.18872896
File: 10 KB, 1791x106, terry-davis-on-dawkins.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18872896

>>18872635
>Probably a big design flaw
I didn't realize we have an infinite intelligence alpha over here who is going to critique God's design of the most complicated thing in the universe? Pic related.
>also make sex bad
No ancient Christian church says sex is bad.
>have marriage not exist as a concept for the first 96% of human history
Any evidence for this?
>Christian marriage only start to exist 2000 years ago
Are you ignoring the ancient Hebrew marriage ceremony, which long predates Christianity, and is what Christian marriage is based off of?

>> No.18872943

>>18872896
>Any evidence for this?
Why bother asking this? You know as well as everyone standing back laughing at you that if he were to produce any kind of evidence or argument you'd just say
>well a 17th century Lithuanian Rabbi said that the Earth is only 6k years old so it doesn't matter
and when someone points out how absurd that is, you'll just default to
>well the Jews invented marriage
And when someone points out that this is not only wrong but completely gets rid of the validity of Christian marriage (because when pressed about why Yahweh would change his mind, you will, as you have done in this thread, uphold the validity of Judaism over that of Christianity), you'll just end up calling them a LARPer as you admire your collection of Funk Po- sorry, Icons.

>> No.18872959

>>18872649
THIS GUY DISCOVERED ONE WEIRD TRICK TO BE PRODUCTIVE
HIS WIFE HATES HIM!

>> No.18872986
File: 11 KB, 185x277, 31L9slRim9L._BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18872986

>>18862811
There is if you cum

>> No.18872997

>>18872943
Why are you strawmanning my argument? The reason I asked for evidence is because there is none, and his claim is completely unfounded. The very birthplace of civilization is the first place that we find evidence of marriage. There is literally no evidence that marriage was not practiced prior to the invention of literacy, so the claim is completely unfounded, and designed to subvert.
>the Earth is only 6k years old so it doesn't matter
I do not believe the world is 6k years old.
>well the Jews invented marriage
I never said this, and it is not true.
>(because when pressed about why Yahweh would change his mind
Change His mind about what?
>you will, as you have done in this thread, uphold the validity of Judaism over that of Christianity
I am a Christian. I hold to the validity of Christianity over Rabbinic Judaism. What are you even talking about?
>you'll just end up calling them a LARPer as you admire your collection of Funk Po- sorry, Icons.
I am not Orthodox.

>> No.18873011

>>18862811
Just whining and mental instability about random shit. Only redeemable part of book is philosophy of time

>> No.18873059

>>18872997
>I never said this, and it is not true.
Well, let's see...
>The very birthplace of civilization
And...
>Are you ignoring the ancient Hebrew marriage ceremony, which long predates Christianity, and is what Christian marriage is based off of?
So, there you go.

It sounds like you're just upset that you're an NPC who thinks solely in terms of pre-programmed scripts, and you're upset that people can really easily see where you're going to go next.

>> No.18873071

>>18872997
>The very birthplace of civilization
So the Steppe along the Black Sea? That's weird, how could there be Jews there over five thousand years before Judaism was invented? Or are you referring to the Yellow River, or the Yucatan? Maybe Sumer? Or perhaps the Indus Valley? I don't see how Jews could be in any of these places thousands of years before Judaism was invented.

>> No.18873102

>>18873059
>>18873071
>The very birthplace of civilization
Is ancient Mesopotamia, where we have the first records of marriage. I never claimed that the Jews invented marriage. I mentioned Jewish marriage as a counterpoint against >>18872635's that "Christian marriage" only started to exist 2000 years ago. The first Christians, like St. Peter, would have been married in Jewish ceremonies. I don't even know why you two are assuming that I claimed Jews invented marriage. I never did so. Regardless, premarital sex is still degenerate.

>> No.18873109

>>18873102
>Regardless, premarital sex is still degenerate.
only when gentiles do it of course

>> No.18873134

>>18873109
When anybody does it.

>> No.18873143

>>18873102
So now we've moved through the list. I'm glad we've cleared this up, sadly it took us 150 posts in. If you'd been a little quicker we could have gotten this done shortly after this shitty thread was made. Maybe you'll be quicker next time!

>> No.18873218

>>18873143
I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you think I've been arguing with you this entire time, or something? I just responded to you for the first time here >>18871969, and my position has not changed one iota. You need to calm down, man.

>> No.18873316

>>18872251
Yes.

>> No.18873339

Is there any Christian commentary on the utter and total annihilation of romantic love as seen in modern times? How does one stay celibate without getting an aneurysm when some skimpy thot decides to shows her tits? Are there any books that teach you to curb horny thoughts and reminiscing the sex/romance you've had in your youth? Would Jesus understand?

>> No.18873383

>>18873339
You avoid temptations and occasions for sin. Avoid the beach and gym. If you want to work out, buy equipment for the home.

You block out all lustful images and lust provoking sites. Never go to porn sites again.

Some saint said, it does not do so much harm to look at a woman, as it does to look at her a second time.

Another saint refused to look at women.

Sexual thoughts are never satisfied. The more they are indulged, The stronger the urge to do it again. Think of the brain as a hard drive. You are what you fill it with.

>> No.18873473

>>18873383
>Avoid the beach and gym.
Glad to know I'm on a good path already

>> No.18873482

>>18862811
based and true

>> No.18873495

>>18869199
uh oh!

someones off his endorphin iv again!

>> No.18873507

>>18862811
Guy was a literal faggot.

>> No.18873562

>>18872997
>I do not believe the world is 6k years old
This. It's about 7k years old.

>> No.18873570

>>18873383
Jokes aside as long as I don't quit 4chan which is currently my only relationship with the internet I'll always be subjected to Jezebel bombardment, but it's not only that. There are way too many attractive women IRL who do their best to show off their body. It's impossible not to lust after them and carry that lust back home.
I don't wanna go back to dating. I've quit. It's just not for me. Am I really supposed to change environment?

>> No.18873856

>>18862811
this. he was a hysteric autist.

>> No.18873876

>>18872649
based. his wife must've been seething

>> No.18874064

>>18872649
>>18872959
>>18873876
future cucks

>> No.18874670

>>18863222
>>18863809

John Chrysostom
>Have you noted the measure of obedience? Pay attention to love’s high standard. If you take the premise that your wife should submit to you, as the church submits to Christ, then you should also take the same kind of careful, sacrificial thought for her that Christ takes for the church. Even if you must offer your own life for her, you must not refuse. Even if you must undergo countless struggles on her behalf and have all kinds of things to endure and suffer, you must not refuse. Even if you suffer all this, you have still done not as much as Christ has for the church. For you are already married when you act this way, whereas Christ is acting for one who has rejected and hated him. So just as he, when she was rejecting, hating, spurning and nagging him, brought her to trust him by his great solicitude, not by threatening, lording it over her or intimidating her or anything like that, so must you also act toward your wife. Even if you see her looking down on you, nagging and despising you, you will be able to win her over with your great love and affection for her.

Augustine
>“I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility. . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]).

>> No.18874740

>>18874064
i'd be okay with it if it was a BBC pleasuring my wife

>> No.18874901

>>18869155
I was talking to the OP. You’re in the wrong thread, my child.

>> No.18874909

>>18873339
There's plenty of literature on how to control the passions including the fornication demon like in your case. Look into monasticism.

>No virtue makes flesh-bound man so like a spiritual angel as does self-restraint, for it enables those still living on earth to become, as the Apostle says, 'citizens of heaven' (cf. Phil. 3 : 2o). A sign that we have acquired this virtue perfectly is that our soul ignores those images which the defiled fantasy produces during sleep ; for even if the production of such images is not a sin, nevertheless it is a sign that the soul is ill and has not been freed from passion. We should therefore regard the defiled fantasies that arise in us during sleep as the proof of previous indolence and weakness still existing in us, since the emission which takes place while we are relaxed in sleep reveals the sickness that lies hidden in our souls. Because of this the Doctor of our souls has also placed the remedy in the hidden regions of the soul, recognizing that the cause of our sickness lies there when He says : 'Whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart' (Matt. 5 : 2 8). He seeks to correct not so much our inquisitive and unchaste eyes as the soul which has its seat within and makes bad use of the eyes which God gave it for good purposes. That is why the Book of Proverbs in its wisdom does not say : 'Guard your eyes with all diligence' but 'Guard your heart with all diligence' (Prov. 4- : 2 3), imposi11g the remedy of diligence in the first instance upon that which makes use of the eyes for whatever purpose it desires.
St. John Cassian

>> No.18875284

>>18874909
this is a good quote, thanks

>> No.18875358

>>18863264
>St. Jerome
being a saint doesnt excuse u from saying dumb sheit

>> No.18875394

>>18869095
>the most horrific and systematic child sex abuse in the entire history of mankind
literally less bad than public schools and on the same caliber as Anglicanism, read some actual shit instead of reheating played-out 20-year-old dunks
https://sites.law.duq.edu/juris/2019/03/16/catholic-priest-sex-abuse-scandals-how-the-media-shapes-the-public-perception-of-child-abuse-in-the-catholic-church/

>> No.18875410

>>18869145
Foreplay is literally just a part of sex. BJ is iffier because it involves actual discharge of coom. I mean, I think if the actual end result is still coom in vajeen (and you aren't a low-T fag who gets tired out after the first coom) I think you should be allowed to do shit like handjob, blowjob, etc with your wife because you could argue it's all still part of sex. That's just my opinion and I could be wrong though.

>> No.18875437

>>18875394
>Catholics only sexually assaulted hundreds of thousands of children. Why that’s nothing compared to all the other religions and secularist schools!
You act as though we have the full scope and records of it all. It’s an indefensible institution

>> No.18875820

>>18875437
Catholic Priests have a lower rate of rape than school teachers, tranny.

>> No.18875949
File: 171 KB, 1088x1412, priests,_ministers_and_teachers_sex_abuse.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18875949

>>18875820

>> No.18876044 [DELETED] 

>>18863586
So he did destroyed Europe

>> No.18876918

>>18875437
>It’s an indefensible institution
Only if you've fallen for media propaganda, and have been subject to the anti-Church campaign we know as Wilhelm Reich's sexual revolution.

>> No.18876928

>>18875820
I just said, we don’t even know the whole truth

>>18875949
Because which ones are being prosecuted?

>> No.18877004

>>18869191
>So pedophilia is basically unknown in the church. The forced celibate of priests is one of the things that make Roman Catholicism so alien to me and perhaps many others - the usual retort is that to rule Roman Catholic church instead of merely tending to it, the Popes forces monk-hood on people not prepared for it and incapable of being life-long celibate, with inevitable lapses and then degeneracy.

Your beef is with St. Paul, and with the standard he set in 1 Cor 7 -- and with the Holy Spirit for inspiring Paul to down the inerrant truths he recorded in 1 Cor 7.

Moreover, that standard is plainly consistent with, and a perfection of, the standard imposed on the priests of the Old Testament:

>[1] In the Book of Deuteronomy this is read in the context of the preceding disposition, according to which priests do not receive any portion of land in the Holy Land - they live of God and for God. They did not attend to the usual work necessary to sustain daily life. Their profession was to "stand in the Lord's presence" - to look to him, to be there for him... In the Old Testament, the Levites give up owning land. In the New Testament, this privation is transformed and renewed: priests, since they are radically consecrated to God, renounce marriage and the family. [...] The true foundation of the priest's life, the salt of his existence, the land of his life is God himself.

>[2] In the common conscience of Israel, >**priests were strictly required to respect sexual abstinence during the periods in which they exercised worship**
>and were therefore in contact with the divine mystery. The relationship between sexual abstinence and divine worship was absolutely clear in Israel's common conscience. As an example, I would like to recall the episode of David who, fleeing from Saul, prayed to the priest Ahimelek to give him bread: “The priest replied to David: 'I have no common breads at hand, I have only sacred breads for your young men, if they have at least abstained from women. ' David replied to the priest: 'Of course! We have abstained from women for three days' ”(1 Sam 21:5f). Since the priests of the Old Testament were not to devote themselves to worship except during certain periods, marriage and the priesthood were compatible.

>BUT because of the regular and often daily celebration of the Eucharist, the situation of the priests of the Church of Jesus Christ is found to be radically changed.

>By now, their whole life is in contact with the divine mystery. This requires on their part exclusivity in regard to God.

>This excludes as a result other bonds which, like marriage, embrace the whole of life.

>From the daily celebration of the Eucharist, which implies a permanent state of service of God, the impossibility of a marriage bond spontaneously arose.

Source (with some paraphrases in the above):
http://choosing-him.blogspot.com/2020/01/more-from-bombshell-book-of-ratzinger.html

>> No.18877066

>>18875358
post halo

>> No.18877113

>>18875820
sweaty, it's based on reported cases and the study that those blog posts you keep referencing specifically states that most cases are not reported or are only reported decades after the incidents. moreover the church has deliberately and persistently acted to cover up the incidents. it also doesn't speak well for your beacon of judeochristian values and western civilization when the best defense you can come up with is why yes they did all those heinous and revolting acts, but others did it more!

>> No.18878604

>>18877113
>one institution should be singled out for doing something that fucking every institution does
Also saying that the Church itself should be abandoned because priests have committed sins is just modern Donatism.

>> No.18878740

>>18863133
>Any act of copulation is animal tier
we're animals too, get over yourself

>> No.18880049

>>18878740
>we are irrational animals incapable of discernment
This sounds like glow agent propaganda.

>> No.18880086

>>18875358
That wasn't dumb. You offered zero refutation of his argument and merely attempted a reddit tier slander. St. Jerome was one of the most intelligent men to ever live and was polymath, devoting his mind to study and reflection, and knew full well the opposite of that was the lowly state of carnal release.

>> No.18880118
File: 217 KB, 650x703, 1609722119820.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18880118

>>18876928
aah yes covering your ass with unfalsifiable claims, the trademark of a true leftist intellectual

>> No.18880568

>>18869095
Reddit. Problem is the church modernizing itself. Simple as.

>> No.18880818

>>18878604
One institution has been found (again) to be total moral frauds AND actively covering up their crimes AND actively enabling said crime to continue.

That churches/temples/mosques should be abandoned is quite an old and sound idea. Your faith needs no centralized government when it’s got a god to watch over it. RIGHT?

>>18880118
It’s a well known scandal

>> No.18880937
File: 90 KB, 1280x720, dfw laugh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18880937

>dude I got too much pussy! Take a lesson from me and be chaste
Thanks Augustine, I'll make sure to avoid fucking tons of women haha.

>> No.18881261
File: 3.98 MB, 2800x1232, 57._bosch_ascent_detail_2800.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18881261

>>18880818
>That churches [...] should be abandoned is quite an old and sound idea.
Does it concern you at all that you share this viewpoint with countless Jewish revolutionaries through history, like Wilhelm Reich, who all desired to erode the moral fabric of Christian society? Has it ever occurred to you that you might be acting as an unwitting agent of revolutionary change, for forces far beyond your comprehension?

>> No.18881303

>>18881261
>That churches [...] temples/mosques
> you share this viewpoint with countless Jew—
I am a revolutionary. And I am in good company. A majority of of them aren’t even jewish